Soccer's gay. I'm sick of seeing grown men lie on the ground clutching themselves like they've been shot with a twelve guage then being totally fine 30 seconds later.

Come and play for my local team in England,where you go past the defender and he whispers in your ear "go past me again and I will snap your f**king legs in two" and he means it.And when he tries,you can roll around all you like because the ref won't do anything in case he gets whacked himself.
FACT:6,000 amateur referees quit last year because of the violent nature of the games.
So don't spout about something you know f**k all about.
For the record,last season I needed 9 stitches in my eye,broke 2 toes,and dislocated my wrist.
So if you think its gay you can gladly come and stay with me for the weekend and I will get you in a game.

i am sympathetic to those who think soccer is boring. i played it for most of my life, and i follow it abroad, so i fit into a fairly small sub-culture of americans.

that said, soccer can be whatever the teams want it to be. the fun of it is the unpredictable performances, the small moments that turn a game into a frenzy, and the intelligence that you can see in the best players.

goals mean a lot. to entire countries, in this case. did anyone see the way the 1 million italians moved when they scored against germany? that is part of the excitement of the game. you realise that so many people around the world actually care and go insane about it.

goals mean a lot. to entire countries, in this case. did anyone see the way the 1 million italians moved when they scored against germany? that is part of the excitement of the game. you realise that so many people around the world actually care and go insane about it.

I think this is the biggest draw of the game, really. Of course, then you're getting excited about getting excited, which is quite strangely self-referential. A sport for the Baudrillard in all of us....

Quote:

Originally Posted by benecios

Come and play for my local team in England,where you go past the defender and he whispers in your ear "go past me again and I will snap your f**king legs in two" and he means it.And when he tries,you can roll around all you like because the ref won't do anything in case he gets whacked himself. FACT:6,000 amateur referees quit last year because of the violent nature of the games. So don't spout about something you know f**k all about. For the record,last season I needed 9 stitches in my eye,broke 2 toes,and dislocated my wrist. So if you think its gay you can gladly come and stay with me for the weekend and I will get you in a game.

Okay, cutting through the whole internet-tough-guy act, that's nice and all... but it has nothing to do with the game as it's played professionally. You can find pickup basketball games in most cities in America where you can probably get yourself put in a coma if you *really* want to, but that doesn't change the fact that the game, as it's played professionally, is fairly light on contact. Ditto for soccer, only there are some hilariously egregious examples to point to. Seriously, if you're injured badly enough to be taken out of the game on a stretcher, there's no way you come back for days at least. You definitely don't come back in half an hour.

I think this is the biggest draw of the game, really. Of course, then you're getting excited about getting excited, which is quite strangely self-referential. A sport for the Baudrillard in all of us....

Okay, cutting through the whole internet-tough-guy act, that's nice and all... but it has nothing to do with the game as it's played professionally. You can find pickup basketball games in most cities in America where you can probably get yourself put in a coma if you *really* want to, but that doesn't change the fact that the game, as it's played professionally, is fairly light on contact. Ditto for soccer, only there are some hilariously egregious examples to point to. Seriously, if you're injured badly enough to be taken out of the game on a stretcher, there's no way you come back for days at least. You definitely don't come back in half an hour.

I am talking about every game in every city at amateur level.Six thousand is a lot of referees to quit in one year.
Furthermore if there was any "internet tough guy act" I wouldnt be the one with the stitches etc...I would be the one leaving people needing stitches.I am not happy to play in these games which is why with a 3 month old son and no employers sick pay scheme this will probably be my last season.
And finally a bit more "internet tough guy" for you.My girlfriend's brother is gay,he is 6'4" and 240 lbs and I am sure he would love to have a "chat" with Violinist about using the word gay as some kind of insult to a sports "toughness".

I am talking about every game in every city at amateur level.Six thousand is a lot of referees to quit in one year.
Furthermore if there was any "internet tough guy act" I wouldnt be the one with the stitches etc...I would be the one leaving people needing stitches.I am not happy to play in these games which is why with a 3 month old son and no employers sick pay scheme this will probably be my last season.
And finally a bit more "internet tough guy" for you.My girlfriend's brother is gay,he is 6'4" and 240 lbs and I am sure he would love to have a "chat" with Violinist about using the word gay as some kind of insult to a sports "toughness".

I'm not arguing with you about play at the amateur level--I can easily believe what you're saying. Maybe I should try watching amateur-level football? It sounds more fun. All I can say (without beating a dead horse) is that I wish that the professional game was closer to how you're describing the amateur game in terms of contact.

To me hockey is soccer on ice. They are so similar and while hockey is moderately popular here, not nearly on the level of football, baseball, and basketball.

They are both just too slow paced for American people. In fact I tried to watch the German WC match last week and it was painful for me. The game was pretty much summed up in, a guy passes, dribbles, gets intercepted, the ball goes out of bounds, throws it in, repeat. I found myself constantly frustrated. Also Americans don't like games ending in ties because it makes the game pointless in the scope of that single game.

Also while fans of soccer can be applauded for their loyalty, they also turn me off. In Mexico during the last WC, when the Mexican fans all started chanting "Bin Laden" after 9/11 when they played the American team it infuriated me. There are many instances of fans acting like this in WC games, with riots and racism.

They are too slow-paced for Americans?!? Hah! Are you saying that football, and especially baseball are fast paced? In football it takes them 3 hours to play a 1 hour game. And in baseball they spend more time sitting on the bench or standing around in the field than actually playing the game. Say what you'll say about soccer, but don't say that Americans don't like it because it's too slow-paced when two of America's favorite sports are much slower paced.

This is my thing with soccer/football: there are no *plays*. There is really very little strategy involved. Any game in which the interceptions can easily outnumber the goals by a factor of, like, 100 over the course of the game leaves no *meaningful* room for strategy. This is also my problem with hockey, by the way, but at least hockey can make up for its shortcomings in blood, right? Everything else I could get used to. The pace? Well, it doesn't help, but as others have mentioned, American football can move very slowly too, with all the commercial breaks and such; and baseball is freaking glacial. The lack of "holy shit!" moments? Alright, this doesn't help either--this is why basketball is my favorite sport--but there are many forms of spectacle, and I can find the chess-like aspect of a sport (strategy, tactics, etc) worth watching even if it tends to lack those spectacular moments of athleticism. The defensive nature of the game? I can watch a great defense in American football and be completely engrossed.

This is so untrue. Soccer has amazing strategy and plays involved, you just don't notice it. Have you ever heard of the "off-sides trap" and "beating the trap"? Have you ever noticed how there's always a guy running down the wings who tries to cross the ball to the striker in the middle for the striker to score? These are the kinds of things that aren't done in the peewee level, which is often Americans' closes exposure, but world class soccer has amazing strategy. It juts looks to the casual watcher like they are not doing anything, but if you watch for it you can see the strategy. There's a reason why teams like Italy usually win with a score of 1-0 and teams like Brazil will score 4 or more goals in a game. It's because they play totally different strategies. Also, as skalogre said, the strategy and formation changes within a game. A team that's in the lead will play a 4/5/1 formation and will use a long ball strategy while a team that's losing will play a 4/3/3 formation using a wing play strategy.

This is partially the fault of announcers on American television that don't really explain to viewers what's going on.

They are too slow-paced for Americans?!? Hah! Are you saying that football, and especially baseball are fast paced? In football it takes them 3 hours to play a 1 hour game. And in baseball they spend more time sitting on the bench or standing around in the field than actually playing the game. Say what you'll say about soccer, but don't say that Americans don't like it because it's too slow-paced when two of America's favorite sports are much slower paced.

americans who don't like futbol either don't understand it, or they resent it because of it's universal popularity.

i can understand a person not liking it if they don't like sports in general. but i've never heard someone who likes sports give a good reason for not liking futbol.

You are obviously a fan of Jack Kemp (who famously said that soccer is socialist and (US) football is capitalistic).

If comparing it to politics, I think football is more close to Communism and soccer is closer to democracy. In football the referee (i.e., the government) is involved in every aspect of the game. The referee (government) tells you when you can start your play, then the referee (government) tells you when to stop the play, then the referee (government) tells you where you have to put the ball to restart the play, then the referee (government) tells you when to restart the play. I think this is why Americans like football, they like their government to hold their hand and take them through every aspect of their lives.

In soccer, the referee (government) plays a minimal role. He blows the whistle when a foul happens but then lets you place the ball wherever you want, for the most part he doesn't start or stop plays, just kind of lets things take their own route. When there's a foul, he just blows his whistle, points in the direction that the ball should go in and lets play resume. There is much less referee (government) involvment in soccer than there is in football.
Just like their ought to be a lot less government involvment in life in a democracy - very untrue in the United States.

The relative "slowness" of the game is that there is only one goal in the game and its to put the ball in the net with your foot or head. The passing and strategy seem ultimately fruitless and frustrating 90% of the time to an American eye trained for sports with "more action" IE scoring and setting up to score. Football seems much faster because there are smaller "sub goals" (first downs/runs/completed passes on offense, stopping the play, interceptions, and sacks on defense) that happen en route to the main goal (TD or FG) Each pass or run matters in the larger picture, and EVERY player on the field is either actively participating in progressing the ball or stopping the progression of the ball through strategy and action, whereas in soccer (football) each pass or run is usually ultimately pointless feeling because in an hour and a half, you can run the length of the field a hundred times, stand in front of the goal a dozen, shoot six times, and never score a goal. The other players that aren't actively involved in attacking are usually just standing around, or jostling their opponent to try and tie him up, but isn't actually DOING anything. Progressing the ball down the field of play isn't anywhere near as important as it is in American football, golf, or even in Basketball, where at least half the time, when a team gets to their side of the court, they score.

That is what makes the game slow, not the lack of constant action, the lack of breaks in the game, or the fact that they are superb athletes. Its just that the point of a competitive game is to score, and a 90+ minute game that finishes 1-0 feels like running on a treadmill for an hour and a half staring at a wall instead of running down the street for three hours, stopping to look at stuff on the way. Soccer ultimately feels like you aren't getting anywhere, which is why I heard (and cannot deny) the comment a few days ago that the game could be half as long and probably finish with the same result most of the time. There just isn't enough "action" consistantly throughout the game. Passing is not action. I can watch a bunch of guys stand in a big circle and kick a soccer ball around in the park for an hour and a half and get the same emotional response as I can to watching most of a soccer game. Its a "highlight reel" sport. The goals, free kicks, and hard fouls are the only really exciting parts of the game, and the only real reason that I can watch it at all.

I can appreciate the skill that it takes to play, and I recognise that there is a rudimentary system of formations and strategy in place, but its nowhere NEAR as involving as football formations and strategy to watch and analyze.

Personally, I can watch an entire soccer game and feel that there is plenty of action and feel excited by the near misses and great plays where the goalie ends up stopping the ball or the ball ends up slightly off target. With football, I just find it boring to watch because most of the time there's nothing going on. Like I said, it takes them 3 hours to play what is essentially a 1 hour game.

Also, in soccer, the positioning of the players off the ball is arguably more important than the players with the ball. I've played soccer all my life and the reason you have to run so much is that where you are on the field when you don't have the ball is extremely important. I played defense and as a defender, when my side was attacking I had to make sure that I was up forward enough that I'm not holding a striker on side so that he can catch a long ball and have his defender already beat (e.g., if I'm playing too deep as a right back and the left back is playing up higher with the other teams striker behind him, I am keeping that striker on sides even though he has the left back beat already and there is no way that I would be able to catch up to him if he got a long ball). When the other team is on offense I had to make sure that my man is marked and that I am aware of where other players are on the field that might be a potential threat. When my team took corner kicks I was sent into the box because of my height and as soon as the corner kick was over I had to make sure to run all the way back to my original position.

I guess the bottom line is that it's different strokes for different folks. In fact, I think that much of this hatred toward soccer is manufactured in the United States. I've seen plenty of football games finish 1-0 (they call it 6-0 or 7-0 in football, maybe to make people think that they're scoring more than they really are) and nobody seems to bothered by it. If you grew up in a culture where you played soccer from the time you could first walk, you would probably feel a lot more passionate about it, just like I might feel more passionate about football if I grew up in a culture that advocating playing football (btw, I grew up in the United States, but my dad was a soccer player and we came from a soccer-loving country so that's how I got into soccer).

I think basketball is a game that we can all agree on. It has the scoring that people love to see so much of and the positioning that is important to a game like soccer.

Personally, I can watch an entire soccer game and feel that there is plenty of action and feel excited by the near misses and great plays where the goalie ends up stopping the ball or the ball ends up slightly off target. With football, I just find it boring to watch because most of the time there's nothing going on. Like I said, it takes them 3 hours to play what is essentially a 1 hour game.

Also, in soccer, the positioning of the players off the ball is arguably more important than the players with the ball. I've played soccer all my life and the reason you have to run so much is that where you are on the field when you don't have the ball is extremely important. I played defense and as a defender, when my side was attacking I had to make sure that I was up forward enough that I'm not holding a striker on side so that he can catch a long ball and have his defender already beat (e.g., if I'm playing too deep as a right back and the left back is playing up higher with the other teams striker behind him, I am keeping that striker on sides even though he has the left back beat already and there is no way that I would be able to catch up to him if he got a long ball). When the other team is on offense I had to make sure that my man is marked and that I am aware of where other players are on the field that might be a potential threat. When my team took corner kicks I was sent into the box because of my height and as soon as the corner kick was over I had to make sure to run all the way back to my original position.

I guess the bottom line is that it's different strokes for different folks. In fact, I think that much of this hatred toward soccer is manufactured in the United States. I've seen plenty of football games finish 1-0 (they call it 6-0 or 7-0 in football, maybe to make people think that they're scoring more than they really are) and nobody seems to bothered by it. If you grew up in a culture where you played soccer from the time you could first walk, you would probably feel a lot more passionate about it, just like I might feel more passionate about football if I grew up in a culture that advocating playing football (btw, I grew up in the United States, but my dad was a soccer player and we came from a soccer-loving country so that's how I got into soccer).

I think basketball is a game that we can all agree on. It has the scoring that people love to see so much of and the positioning that is important to a game like soccer.

I think that to make soccer more palatable to the US audience, you need to make the goal approximately half its current size, and get rid of the goalkeeper altogether. Let the "defenders" stop the other team from scoring.

I guess the bottom line is that it's different strokes for different folks. In fact, I think that much of this hatred toward soccer is manufactured in the United States. I've seen plenty of football games finish 1-0 (they call it 6-0 or 7-0 in football, maybe to make people think that they're scoring more than they really are) and nobody seems to bothered by it.

i agree. the baseball purists say the best games are the 1-0 pitcher's duels. so why do these same purists complain about 1-0 soccer games?

tokyo, the thing is, if you care about your team, every little bit of action counts. when i watch mexico play, every single pass, every single tackle, or missed tackle, is a big event. not because it leads to a goal, but because it could lead to a goal.

one of the best plays of this world cup was francesco totti dribbling the ball outside of australia's penalty box, taking on 2 or 3 defenders, and then making a no look pass to his teammate in a perfect position to score. unfortunatley, his teammate didn't read the play and so he failed to make the run and the australian's cleared the ball. to a casual observer, the australian's were never in any danger. that play did not make the highlight reels. it will likely be forgotten forever because italy didn't actually score, they didn't even take a shot. but it was a beautiful play.

I guess the bottom line is that it's different strokes for different folks.

Honestly, I think this is just what it comes down to. I like sports, I can appreciate the athleticism that's required of a professional football (soccer) player, I *do* appreciate that obviously there's *some* modicum of strategy going on... but it's just not enough for me.

Let me give you an analogy. I was talking to my sister about the varying appeals of basketball and American football. American football, we decided (since we're both musicians, raised in a pretty musical household) is closer to a symphony--every part is scripted, everything is written in advance, and while there's room for a little improvisation, depending on the score, it's within pretty strictly drawn lines. On the other hand, basketball is like jazz; it's fast, it's improvisational, you have a basic blueprint and occasional moments that are written in advance, but it rewards cleverness and spur-of-the-moment thinking. Individual performances are more highly valued and have more impact.

To *me*--and I'm not saying this is some universal truth or whatever, I'm just saying that, as an American, raised watching American sports, etc--soccer feels like watching a jazz combo where the instruments are constantly going out of tune, and where the bass player suddenly decides that this key just isn't working for him, and switches on a whim. I honestly think that if there was a way to get more ball control involved in soccer, so that passes weren't picked off literally scores of times per game, it would feel much less frustrating to me. I appreciate that there's flow, that there's improvisation, the importance of spacing, etc etc. But all of that falls by the wayside when even the simplest pass has what seems to this casual observer to be an almost 50% chance of getting picked off.

I'm not begrudging anyone their love of the sport--clearly the world has spoken and I'm in the vastly-outnumbered minority--I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from on this one.